Re: [PATCH/RFC 00/02] Remove undocumented IMR-LX4 device nodes

[Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>]

Hello!

On 03/25/2019 02:03 PM, Simon Horman wrote:

>>>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:49 PM Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Remove undocumented IMR-LX4 device nodes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [PATCH/RFC 01/02] arm64: dts: renesas: r8a7795: Remove IMR-LX4 device nodes
>>>>>> [PATCH/RFC 02/02] arm64: dts: renesas: r8a7796: Remove IMR-LX4 device nodes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These patches take the easy way out and simply remove the undocumented
>>>>>> IMR-LX4 device nodes from the upstream tree. Good or bad, let me know!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So perhaps this is a bit overly aggressive but since the DT bindings seem
>>>>>> undocumented and no driver exists in upstream my gut feeling says these DT
>>>>>> nodes were part of an upstreaming attempt that got suspended half-way through.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In case DT binding documentation is in-flight and queued up somewhere
>>>>>> (ideally together with a driver) then feel free to ignore this series.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of removing nodes we could also document the DT bindings for the
>>>>>> IMR-LX4 devices. It would also make sense to add device nodes to other
>>>>>> more recent SoCs than just H3 and M3-W. But blindly adding more DT nodes
>>>>>> with a DT binding but without a driver seems a bit suboptimal compared to
>>>>>> testing against an actual driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> [PATCH v5] media: platform: Renesas IMR driver
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/20170309200818.786255823@cogentembedded.com/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, but that seems to be from 2017! =)
>>>
>>>    I dropped the ball there, as I was tasked with upstreaming V3x support...
>>> The last thing done about the IMR driver was talking to Hans in Prague in
>>> 2017.  I'm planning to return to the driver after I'm done with the
>>> HyperFlash driver.
>>
>> Hi Sergei,
>>
>> I appreciate that we are not always in control of our own priorities,
>> indeed I sympathise with that predicament. However, we shouldn't really
>> be in a situation where DT is making use of undocumented bindings.
>>
>> I would like to ask for the bindings to be documented in the upstream
>> kernel in the near future. And if that is not possible I believe we
>> should consider temporarily removing their use in DT in the upstream kernel.
> 
> Hi Sergei,
> 
> about two months have passed since Magnus posted this series.

   Time flies...
   Dealing w/ the flash drivers turned into unending nightmare. :-(

> Do you have a timeline to address the problems?

   I'm looking into posting the bindings separately right now.
The patch should be ready today or tomorrow.

> If so I believe> that the way forward should be to apply this series.

   Hm, not sure I understood you correctly. You're going to remove
the device nodes even if I have a timeline?

[...]

MBR, Sergei